Global Warming Consensus Looking More Like A Myth

Brian Angliss says: February 18, 2013 at 8:42 pm
“……After all, would you call a medical doctor a scientist in the same way a chemist or biologist or meteorologist is? How about a veterinarian? …[…]…All of those professions and more use the scientific method of observing, hypothesizing, testing, and drawing conclusions, but none of them are practicing scientists. And neither are most engineers….”
Ah, you assume too much sir. Take the humble veterinarian. There are many roles filled by those in such a profession, all the way from someone in a clinic dealing with pets to those in the intensive animal industries, immersed in spreadsheets, trials, replicates, and statistics. Then you have the epidemiologists, usually government employed. Not to mention those in research in every major university in the world. Same goes for medicos.
I think you may be right about not being able to compare engineers to practicing scientists. It is my experience that engineers are the most analytical and practical professionals I have encountered, adapting their most easily to many unusual situations. (disclaimer, I ain’t a engineer!)

time lows in winter seasons at high altitude cannot be understood with first year
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
should have read latitude, not altitude. Well in retrospect…. both.

The 1077 pareticipants in the survey were a self selecting group who decided to respond out of 40,000 potential participants.
Self selecting surveys are nototoriusly unreliable as the motivated (for whatever reason) take the effort to respond. They are vulnerable to group manipulation and answers based on self interest.
In this case the fact that the respondents are involved in the fossil fuel industry is a loaded set of potential respondents in the first place. And 70% of respondents are not even scientists, they are engineers.
The authors of the paper recognise these problems, but their paper is not concerned with accurately getting the numbers of participants who agree or disagree with the AGW. They are concerned with studying the reasoning of those who fall into various atitudinal groups.
From the Abstract:
…In understanding the struggle over what constitutes and legitimizesexpertise, we make apparent the heterogeneity of claims, legitimation strategies, and use of emotionalityand metaphor. By linking notions of the science or science fiction of climate change to the assessmentof the adequacy of global and local policies and of potential organizational responses, we contribute to the understanding of ‘defensive institutional work’ by professionals within petroleum companies, relatedindustries, government regulators, and their professional association.
Keywords
climate change, defensive institutional work, emotion, expertise, framing, metaphor, petroleum industry

Gail Combs, that’s interesting. Since we have recently gone through an extended solar minimum and a sputtering start to the new cycle, then the fact that ARGO shows a continuing rise in heat content is even more spectacular then?

Donald L Klipstein says:
February 18, 2013 at 7:30 pm
The three lines in the graph that begin with 1997 or 1997.1 appear to
me as cherrypicked …..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The cherry picking was done by the CAGW alarmists. We just counted back from the present.
The NOAA falsification criterion is on page S23 of its 2008 report titled ‘The State Of The Climate’ and can be read at
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf
It says

ENSO-adjusted warming in the three surface temperature datasets over the last 2–25 yr continually lies within the 90% range of all similar-length ENSO-adjusted temperature changes in these simulations (Fig. 2.8b). Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

A single decade of observational TLT data is therefore inadequate for identifying a slowly evolving anthropogenic warming signal. Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature. ”
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JD016263.shtml

The LLNL-led research shows that climate models can and do simulate short, 10- to 12-year “hiatus periods” with minimal warming, even when the models are run with historical increases in greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosol particles. They find that tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere.”
https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/Nov/NR-11-11-03.html

The multimodel average tropospheric temperature trends are outside the 5–95 percentile range of RSS results at most latitudes. The likely causes of these biases include forcing errors in the historical simulations (40–42), model response errors (43), remaining errors in satellite temperature estimates (26, 44), and an unusual manifestation of internal variability in the observations (35, 45). These explanations are not mutually exclusive. Our results suggest that forcing errors are a serious concern.”
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/11/28/1210514109.full.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/11/28/1210514109

Dr. Phil Jones – 5 July 2005
The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.
Dr. Phil Jones – 2009
‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.
CO2 and temperature are not correlated. This is a direct plot of temp anomaly vs CO2: http://i1244.photobucket.com/albums/gg580/stanrobertson/1993-2012_zps7947e219.jpg
Solar Insolation does: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/eemian_greenland.jpg?w=640
Also see Nir Shaviv’s paper

Using the Oceans as a Calorimeter, one can quantify the solar climate link and establish that an amplification mechanism (such as the cosmic ray climate link) must exist. Anyone thinking that only the solar irradiance variations are important (e.g., the IPCC scientists) should read this.

Shaviv shows a link between solar 11 yr cycle and ocean heat in his peer-reviewed paper.

Brian Angliss;
But as an EE myself, I studied quantum mechanics and optics. That doesn’t mean I understand the physics of chemical reactions. Mechanical engineers study the physical properties of materials like spring force, friction, and hardness. That doesn’t mean they understand the physics of electron flow. And so on.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What an utter cop out.
The formulas that describe voltage, resistance, capacitance and inductance are pretty much the same as the formulas that describe force, friction, springs and fly wheels. K(e)= 1/2 mv^2. K(c)= 1.2 cv^2. Once you study one field of physics making the move to another becomes easier and easier. Not to mention that in a discussion of radiative physics you try and distract everyone by yapping about chemical reactions. Sorry bud, in the climate debate, the chemical reaction, conversion of carbon to CO2 to result in a doubling of CO2, has already happened, so even if engineers understood zippo about chemistry, the point is moot (which you well know)
But you didn’t answer my question, did you? SB Law is P=5.67*10^-8*T^4 with P in w/m2 and T in degrees K.
Are you seriously going to tell me that an EE with a P Eng can’t figure out how to use this formula because you never studied radiative physics? You are unable to enter into a discussion as to who that formula shows in regard spatial/temporal distribution of warming being biased to night time lows in winter seasons in high latitudes? You are incapable of having a discussion that changes to day time highs, in summer, in low latitudes must be by comparison diminished?
As an EE P. Eng, are you capable of applying that one formula to show that cold regions will warm more than warm regions, making the temperature of the earth more uniform? As an EE P.Eng I’d think you would be capable of understanding the wind is driven by pressure differential (like current is driven by voltage differential) and pressure differential is minimized by a more uniform global temperature (like hooking up batteries in parallel with large voltage differences versus batteries in parallel with small voltage differences) and hence a warmer world should feature fewer severe weather events, not more? Really, the concepts are beyond your ken as an EE P Eng? Seriously? I’ve been banging that drum for 10 years and the leaked IPCC AR5 report says I was right and they were wrong the whole time.
I with no degree can understand ohms and farads and voltage as well as friction, momentum and springs as well as SB Law, Planck and absorption spectra, but you, with your EE and P. Eng are not? Seriously?
An engineer who studied calculus, quantum mechanics and optics who can’t make the leap to calculus, quantum mechanics and SB Law? What;s the difference between the atmospheric window and a band pass filter? You do remember what a band pass filter is don’t you? Are the concepts so foreign that you can’t understand them? Or did you fail to even try?
Frankly, if an EE P. Eng wants to stand up and say that he is incapable of understanding these concepts, then all I can suggest is that you are a victim of self imposed ignorance.

More information showing the Global Warming Consensus is a Myth from “The Conversation” of all places.

Warwick Wakefield
The first statement that the climate catastrophists make is that “the science is in and all the relevant scientists agree.” The impression is created that the only people who disagree are ignorant, knuckle dragging, sister shagging, types believe that homeopathy is a scientifically sound system.
What if the fact is that hundreds and hundreds of top flight scientists from the top flight universities and other scientific institutes vehemently reject the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory on the best of scientific grounds? What if it can be shown that the battle about the validity of this theory is fought with great ferocity at the highest levels of the worldwide scientific community? Then it would be seen that this foundation statement, “all the relevant scientists agree,” is totally false.
Here are just a few of the top flight scientists who reject the AGW theory:
Harold Lewis
Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Here is his letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan Jr, Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society.
It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.
The money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
*******
William Happer
Professor of Physics at Princeton University
The earth’s climate has always been changing. Our present global warming is not at all unusual by the standards of geological history, and it is probably benefiting the biosphere. Indeed, there is very little correlation between the estimates of CO2 and of the earth’s temperature over the past 550 million years.
I want to discuss a contemporary moral epidemic: the notion that increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, will have disastrous consequences for mankind and for the planet. The “climate crusade” is one characterized by true believers, opportunists, cynics, money-hungry governments, manipulators of various types—even children’s crusades—all based on contested science and dubious claims.
The management of most scientific societies has enthusiastically signed on to the global warming bandwagon. This is not surprising, since governments, as well as many states and foundations, generously fund those who reinforce their desired outcomes under the cover of saving the planet. Certain private industries are also involved: those positioned to profit from enacted controls as well as financial institutions heavily invested in “green technologies” whose rationale disappears the moment global warming is widely understood to be a non-problem.
**********
Dr. Philip Lloyd
Former professor at University of Witwatersrand, established a course in environmental chemical engineering.
Currently serves as an honorary research fellow with the Energy Research Centre at the University of CapeTown.
“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil. I have studied the ice core record, in detail, and am concerned that those who claim to have a model of our climate future haven’t a clue about the forces driving our climate past. I am particularly concerned that the rigor of science seems to have been sacrificed on an altar of fundraising. I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.”
**********
Frederick Wolf
Professor of physics, Keene State College in New Hampshire
“Several things have contributed to my skepticism about global warming being due to human causes. We all know that the atmosphere is a very complicated system. Also, after studying climate, I am aware that there are cycles of warm and cold periods of varying lengths which are still not completely understood. I am impressed by the number of scientific colleagues who are naturally skeptical about the conclusion of human induced warming.”
***********
David Packham
Former principal research scientist with CSIRO
Senior research fellow, climate group at Monash University
“I find that I am uncomfortable with the quality of the science being applied to the global warming question. This lack of comfort comes from many directions: A lack of actual measurements for terrestrial radiation and the use of deemed values for particulate radiation absorption; The failure to consider the role of particulates from biomatter burning; The lack of critical thought and total acceptance of the global warming models as conclusive evidence; The lack of transparency and obscuration of the critical weaknesses in the GCMs. Along with these discomforts goes an observation that research funding for environmental research in Australia, in my case mercury and wildfires, is almost impossible unless it is part of yet more greenhouse data gathering.
There is also an atmosphere of intimidation if one expresses dissenting views or evidence. It is as if one is doing one’s colleagues a great disservice in dissenting and perhaps derailing the gravy train. The effect of the group think is creating a corporate data gathering mind set amongst our young researchers that I think is dangerous.”
**********
Dr. Joanne Simpson
Atmospheric Scientist, formerly of NASA
First woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology.
Called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years” by
atmospheric scientist Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr.
Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly, the main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system. But as a scientist I remain skeptical.
**********
Thomas B. Gray Meteorologist
Former head of the Space Services branch at the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and a researcher in NOAA’s Space Environment Laboratory and Environmental Research Laboratories.
“Nothing that is occurring in weather or in climate research at this time can be shown to be abnormal in the light of our knowledge of climate variations over geologic time. The claims of those convinced that AGW is real and dangerous are not supported by reliable data,”
**********
Peter Stilbs
Chairs the climate seminar Department of Physical Chemistry at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm
Stilbs coordinated a meeting of international scientists and declared his skepticism about manmade climate fears. Stilbs wrote on December 21, 2006 that “by the final panel discussion stage of the conference, there appeared to be wide agreement” about several key points regarding man-made climate fears.
• “There is no strong evidence to prove significant human influence on climate on a global basis.
• The global cooling trend from 1940 to 1970 is inconsistent with models based on anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions.
• Actual claims put forward are that an observed global temperature increase of about 0.3 degrees C since 1970 exceeds what could be expected from natural variation. However, recent temperature data do not indicate any continued global warming since 1998.
• There is no reliable evidence to support that the 20th century was the warmest in the last 1000 years.
**********
Dr. Robert Balling
Climatologist of Arizona State University
Former head of the university’s Office of Climatology
Has served as climate consultant to the United Nations Environment Program,
the World Climate Program,
the World Meteorological Organization,
and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
Balling expressed skepticism about man-made climate fears in 2007. “In my lifetime, this global-warming issue might fade away,” Balling said in a November 11, 2007 interview with the Arizona Republic newspaper.
Noting the pressure he feels as a skeptical scientist, Balling explained, “Somehow I’ve been branded this horrible person who belongs in the depths of hell.” He added, “There’s just no tolerance right now.” The article explained, “Balling’s research over the years has explored sun activity, pollution from volcanoes, the urban-heat-island effect and errors in past temperature models as possible causes of rising temperatures.”
*********
Hajo Smit
Meteorologist of Holland
Member of the Dutch IPCC committee
Snow forecaster for Dutch winter sports
Has presented his research on soil moisture’s role in global
climate models at National Center for Atmospheric Research.
During my full year working at the Department of Atmospheric Sciences of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, I became suspicious about the way modeling science is done. Odd arbitrary parameterizations seemed the rule rather than the exception.
The “practice of simplifying models so that accurate measurements can be used to calibrate them, seemed to be abandoned by GCM groups in favor of a childish delight in presenting colorful computer printouts of when and where which temperature changes will occur.
Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.
The vast amount of new research since my graduation points to clear cut solarclimate coupling and to a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales.
***********
Oliver K. Manuel
Professor of Nuclear Chemistry of the University of Missouri-Rolla
Authored more than 100 scientific papers and published research in peer-reviewed literature.
“Compared to solar magnetic fields, however, the carbon dioxide production has as much influence on climate as a flea has on the weight of an elephant,”
***********
Ivar Giaever
Nobel Prize Winner for Physics in 1973,
Fellow of the American Physical Society
“Moreover, global warming has become a new religion. We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important: only whether they are correct is important. We don’t really know what the actual effect on the global temperature is. There are better ways to spend the money,” he added.
*******
Dr. Robert Austin
Physicist, Princeton University
“I view Climategate as science fraud, pure and simple.”
*******
Dr. Don Easterbrook
Professor of geology at Western Washington University
“The corruption within the IPCC revealed by the Climategate scandal, the doctoring of data and the refusal to admit mistakes have so severely tainted the IPCC that it is no longer a credible agency.”
*******
Dr. Robert B. Laughlin,
Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist
“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself — Climate is beyond our power to control…Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation. You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.
*******
Dr. Hans Jelbring
Climatologist, Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University
“The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.”
*******
Dr. John Reid
Atmospheric Physicist, who worked with CSIRO‘s, Division of Oceanography and worked in ocean waves research.
“Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith…My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I
know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.”
*******
Dr. Judith Curry
Chair of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology
Defected from the global warming activist movement.
“There is ‘a lack of willingness in the climate change community to steer away from groupthink.
*******
Philip Stott
Professor of Biogeography, University of London.
“As I have said, over and over again, the fundamental point has always been this: climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically-selected factor is as misguided as it gets.”
*******
Leonard Weinstein
NASA, Langley Research Center, presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace
“Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong. The final question that arises is what prediction has the AGW made that has been demonstrated, and that strongly supports the theory.
It appears that there is NO real supporting evidence and much disagreeing evidence for the AGW theory as proposed.
There is also almost surely some contribution to the present temperature from the increase in CO2 and CH4, but it seems to be small and not a driver of future climate.”
*******
Hilton Ratcliffe
South African astrophysicist, member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics
The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. The data does not support Gore’s hypothesis. Without trying too hard, I found 35 fundamental “errors” in An Inconvenient Truth. The word “errors” is in quotation marks because it is inconceivable to me that these falsehoods could all have been inadvertent. Some or possibly all were put there to deceive the viewer. There appears to have been money gained by [Michael] Mann, Gore and [UN IPCC‘s] Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it’s fraud. If proven in a court of law, they should be heavily punished and their ill-gotten assets confiscated and put to the benefit of mankind.”
*******
Coalition of German scientists
More than 60 prominent German scientists have publicly declared their dissent from man-made global warming fears in an Open Letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in August 2009.
“Humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions.
Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles.
More importantly, there’s a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role.
Indeed CO2’s capability to absorb radiation is almost exhausted by today’s atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long term would in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree.”
“Indeed the atmosphere has not warmed since 1998 – more than 10 years, and the global temperature has even dropped significantly since 2003.
Not one of the many extremely expensive climate models predicted this. According to the IPCC, it was supposed to have gotten steadily warmer, but just the opposite has occurred.”
******
American Physical Society
In 2010, more than 260 scientists, members of the American Physical Society,(APS) endorsed the efforts of skeptical Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer to substantially amend the APS alarmist statement on man-made global warming.
Happer
wrote to APS governing board: ―Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th – 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today.
Some of the signatories
Harold M. Agnew,
White House Science Councilor (1982 -1989)
Director, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Ralph B. Alexander,
Associate Professor of Physics Wayne State University
David V. Anderson,
Research Physicist Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Eva Andrei,
Professor of Physics Rutgers University
Robert H. Austin,
Professor of Physics Princeton University
David F. Bartlett,
Professor of Physics University of Colorado
Franco Battaglia,
Professor of Chemical Physics and Environmental Chemistry University of Modena, Italy
Peter J. Baum,)
Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics University of California at Riverside
Ami E. Berkowitz,
Professor of Physics University of California at San Diego
Alan Berman,
School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences University of Miami
Barry L. Berman,
Chair Physics Department The George Washington University
Arie Bodek,
Professor of Physics University of Rochester
Richard J. Briggs,
Deputy Director, Superconducting Supercollider Laboratory
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Lowell S. Brown,
Professor of Physics University of Washington
William T. Buttler,
Experimental Physicist Physics Division Los Alamos National Laboratory
C. Todd Chadwick,
Professor and Former Chairman Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry State University of New York,
Lawrence Cranberg,
Professor of Physics University of Virginia
Steven R. Cranmer,
Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
David H. Douglass,
Professor of Physics University of Rochester
James E. Draper,
Professor of Physics University of California at Davis
William T. Duffy Jr.,
Professor of Physics Santa Clara University
David F. Edwards,
Physicist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Los Alamos National Laboratory;
Professor of Physics and Electrical Engineering, Colorado State University;
Jens G. Feder,
Professor of Physics of Geological Processes University of Oslo
Douglas E. Fields,
Associate Professor Department of Physics and Astronomy University of New Mexico
Edward J. Finn,
Professor of Physics, Georgetown University
Ivar Giaever,
Professor, School of Engineering and School of Science Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Nobel Prize in Physics 1973
Eleftherios Gkioulekas,
Associate Dean of Engineering and Applied Sciences Harvard
Mike Gruntman,
Professor of Astronautics University of Southern California
Aksel Hallin,
Chair in Astroparticle Physics Department of Physics University of Alberta
Sultan Hameed,
Professor of Atmospheric Science School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences Stony Brook University, New York
William Happer,
Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Jack M. Hollander,
Professor of Energy and Resources, University of California, Berkeley
Alexander E. Kaplan,
Professor Electrical and Computer Engineering The Johns Hopkins University
Jonathan Katz,
Professor of Physics Washington University
Robert S. Knox,
Professor of Physics University of Rochester
M. Kristiansen,
Professor Electrical and Computer Engineering Texas Tech University
Moyses Kuchnir,
Applied Scientist Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Joseph A. Kunc,
Professor, Physics and Astronomy University of Southern California
Gary S. Kyle,
Professor of Physics New Mexico State University
Paul L. La Celle,
Professor, Department of Biomedical Engineering
Max Planck Institute for Biophysics, Frankfort
.Sau-Hai Lam,
Professor of Engineering Princeton University
Steven K. Lamoreaux,
Professor of Physics Yale University
Robert B. Laughlin,
Professor of Physics, Stanford University
E. O. Lawrence,)
1986 Nobel Prize in Physics 1998 Member National Academy of Sciences; Fellow AAAS
Harold W. Lewis,
Professor of Physics Emeritus University of California at Santa Barbara Chairman,
Richard Marrus,
Emeritus Professor of Physics University of California at Berkeley
John Martinis,
Professor of Physics University of California, Santa Barbara
Associate Professor of Physics Illinois State University
Joseph Maserjian,
Senior Research Scientist, California Institute of Technology -Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Michael Monce,
Professor of Physics, Astronomy, and Geophysics Connecticut College
Christopher R. Monroe,
Bice Zorn Professor of Physics Joint Quantum Institute, University of Maryland
Richard A. Muller,
Professor of Physics University of California at Berkeley
Faculty Senior Scientist, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Principle Author, Ice Ages and Astronomical Causes
Rodney W. Nichols,
President and CEO, New York Academy of Sciences
Vice President and Executive Vice President, The Rockefeller University
William P. Oliver,
Professor of Physics Tufts University
Frank R. Paolini,
Adjunct Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut at Stamford
Donald Rapp,
Professor of Physics and Environmental Engineering, University of Texas (1973-1979) Author, Assessing Climate Change and Ice Ages and Interglacials (Springer-Verlag)
John E. Rhoads,
Professor of Physics Midwestern State University
Stanley Robertson,
Professor of Physics Southwestern Oklahoma State University
Isaac C. Sanchez,
William J. Murray, Jr. Chair in Engineering and Associate Chair Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Texas at Austin U
Nicola Scafetta,
Research Scientist Physics Department Duke University
S. Fred Singer,
Professor of Environmental Sciences Emeritus University of Virginia
John R. Smith,
Project Physicist, Experimental High Energy Physics Department of Physics University of California at Davis
Peter Stilbs,
Professor of Physical Chemistry Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm,
Thomas F. Stratton, Fellow, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Szymon Suckewer,
Professor of School of Engineering & Applied Sciences Princeton University
Salvatore Torquato,
Professor of Chemistry and the Princeton Center for Theoretical Science, Princeton University
Richard W. Vook,
Professor of Physics Syracuse University
John Weiner,
Visiting Professor, University of Maryland
Steven J. Werkema,
Deputy Head Fermilab Antiproton Source Department
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Samuel A. Werner,
The University of Missouri
Bruce J. West,
Adjunct Professor of Physics Duke University
David C. Williams,
Associate Professor Department of Physics University of Alabama at Birmingham
Ya-Hong Xie,
Professor of Materials Science and Engineering University of California at Los Angeles
Martin V. Zombeck,
Physicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
From comments @ur momisugly http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-change-is-real-an-open-letter-from-the-scientific-community-1808

I criticized JustTheFacts use of the paper “Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change,” in the journal Organization Studies.
JustTheFacts responde to my criticism at February 18, 2013 at 4:58 pm reponds with

I reposted an interesting article from IBD, along with a link to and quotes from the associated paper. This resulted in an open and active debate in comments, which is what I consider to be success. Additionally, I have yet to see a credible challenge to my observation that well educated professional experts with scientific training/geoscientists are quite skeptical of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) narrative. I restate my question to you:
Why do you think that increased scientific literacy results in increased skepticism of CAGW?

That is an interesting recasting of what this post does. In fact, you have presented “Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change,” in the journal Organization Studies as evidence to support a position thay you believe. However the Organization Studies paper does not make the claim that “scientific literacy results in increased skepticism of CAGW.” If fact, the article is all about social standing creating “increased skepticism of CAGW” despite “scientific literacy.” The paper is about how to overcome the “defensiveness” of “deniers” (their word, not mine).
Now, let me make this clear (again): I agree with you that “scientific literacy results in increased skepticism of CAGW.” But be clear about this also, the Organization Studies paper that your post is about does not support that view – quite the opposite.
James Taylor, at Forbes, made the same claims that you made concerning this journal article (and was eaten alive by commenters). The principal authors of the Organization Studies paper, Lefsrud and Meyer, personally commented at the Forbes site, saying..

First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions, it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …” or “scientists don’t believe …” Our research reconstructs the frames the members of a professional association hold about the issue and the argumentative patterns and legitimation strategies these professionals use when articulating their assumptions. Our research does not investigate the distribution of these frames and, thus, does not allow for any conclusions in this direction. We do point this out several times in the paper, and it is important to highlight it again.

And they conclude their comment with..

But once again: This is not a representative survey and should not be used as such! We trust that this clarifies our findings.

So, you misreprsented the Organization Studies paper. Please do not recast by saying your post was really about the IBD article, not the Organization Studies paper, You referenced the Organization Studies paper, and the IBD article was all about the Organization Studies paper. When I challenged you earier about actually reading or understanding the Organization Studies paper you insisted that you had.
You also say “I reposted an interesting article from IBD, along with a link to and quotes from the associated paper.This resulted in an open and active debate in comments, which is what I consider to be success.” That is poor rationalization. You and I could both dream up lots of “interesting” but untrue things that would lead to “an open and active debate in comments.”
Bottom line, you misrepresented the Organization Studies paper.

Brian Angliss;
Suppose you, and EE P Eng, is designing a circuit. It has one component with high enough current draw that you are concerned about the temperature rise of the component. No problem for you, you’re an engineer! An EE no less!
So, you’d probably start with the current draw (I) and the resistance (R) to come up with the power dissipated in watts via P=I^2R. Then you’d figure the surface area of the component from its dimensions (which I presume you can do as they taught this in high school even if you didn’t take it as part of your EE, so no need to call in an ME to do this for you).
Now you have P in w/m2. Then you would use SB Law to determine the equilibrium energy flux at ambient temperature, add your P in w/m2 to that, and calculate a new equilibrium temperature for the component.
Did I get anything wrong so far Mr EE P Eng?
Now if tolerances are particularly tight, I’d expect you to check emissivity and adjust accordingly. I’d expect you to determine the method by which the component is mounted to the rest of the equipment, and adjust for conductance. If there is significant air flow, you’d adjust for conductance to the air. If the component is in an enclosure, you’d need to investigate the radiative properties of the enclosure as they will further raise the temperature of the component.
Anything in that process that is wrong sir? Anything that YOU as an EE P Eng cannot handle?

Now if tolerances are particularly tight, I’d expect you to check emissivity and adjust accordingly. I’d expect you to determine the method by which the component is mounted to the rest of the equipment, and adjust for conductance. If there is significant air flow, you’d adjust for conductance to the air. If the component is in an enclosure, you’d need to investigate the radiative properties of the enclosure as they will further raise the temperature of the component.
Well a friend of mine who is an EE just sent me an email suggesting that a real engineer would probably want to do some testing at this point to verify calculations if the tolerances are indeed stringent. So I asked her, if the data came back completely different from your calculations, would you throw out the data? Or the calculations?
She said she’d double check the calibration of the test equipment, and if it was sound, she would take the data over the calculations.
A guess she’ll never make it as a climate scientist.

davidmhoffer – First, my lack of response to your increasingly agitated comments is not my ignoring you or giving up – sometimes I need to sleep and other times my day job requires me to step away from responding to comments for a few hours.
Second, I apparently created an inaccurate perception – I do not have a Professional Engineer’s certificate. It is not necessary in the US, or generally in electrical engineering in the US, to have one in order to claim that one is an “engineer.” I apologize if I created that impression. In my field, having a certificate means you are more employable and can expect a higher salary, but not much else. I understand that a certificate is all but a requirement for other fields, however, such as civil engineering.
Third, you are correct that much of the math is similar, and that anyone with a certain skillset will be able to replicate much of the results. I’ve done enough of that myself in my own studies of climate, and it’s those replications that are the reason I accept the reality of anthropogenic climate change (although my prefered term is “industrial climate disruption”). But I, and the vast majority of engineers, are skilled amateurs, not experts.
I really don’t understand what’s so radical about the idea that engineers are not the same as scientists. Just because I can change my own tires, gap my own spark plugs, and change the oil in my own cars doesn’t mean that I’m an automobile mechanic. A mechanic does work on cars day in and day out and is far more expert than I will ever be, not because I couldn’t be an expert, but because I have chosen instead to use my time to become an expert in my field of electrical engineering. Similarly, just because I can run a router, hang doors and windows, and rebuild my own bathroom doesn’t make me a carpenter.
The only things I can think of is that actually do explain the resistance to this idea that I have observed are a lack of humility on the part of engineers and other non-experts, motivated reasoning based on self-interest, and/or a lack of awareness of the limitations of one’s own knowledge and expertise.
Fourth, you wrote that my “suggestion reads pure and simple that engineers are not qualified to comment on climate science, yet ‘scientists’ are.” As an EE myself, and as someone who has been reporting about climate science and climate disruption for about a decade now, including verifying many of the results of key papers myself, I certainly did not suggest that engineers are not qualified to comment on climate science. I pointed out that engineers are not scientists in the sense I have previously described in my comments above, and I explained how it was that Taylor distorted the original study. Nothing more.

Brian Angliss says:
February 19, 2013 at 8:35 am
…..This is remarkably close to conspiracist thinking. There is no evidence that climate science (or the multiple specialities of other scientific fields that feed into climate science) has become “corrupted.” Some individuals have made mistakes, and some of those individuals should have corrected their mistakes when they were discovered, but the field(s) as a whole are unaffected…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have GOT TO BE KIDDING!
Just for a start read

Caspar and the Jesus paper
There has been the most extraordinary series of postings at Climate Audit over the last week. As is usual at CA, there is a heavy mathematics burden for the casual reader, which, with a bit of research I think I can now just about follow. The story is a remarkable indictment of the corruption and cyncism that is rife among climate scientists, and I’m going to try to tell it in layman’s language so that the average blog reader can understand it. As far as I know it’s the first time the whole story has been set out in a single posting…..

Beware the global warming fascists: Johnny Ball on how he has been vilified for daring to question green orthodoxy

Andrew Montford has already produced a detailed and damning study on how the UK’s Royal Society has become politicised in recent decades. His conclusions are clear.

Immense damage has been done to the reputation of the Society by its last three presidents. While the fellows’ rebellion has improved matters considerably, the continuing desire of the Society’s leadership to engage in political controversies represents a serious ongoing risk to the Society’s reputation and an abandonment of its principles.

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/royal-society-funding/

Wall Street Journal
Like the first “climategate” leak of 2009, the latest release shows top scientists in the field fudging data, conspiring to bully and silence opponents, and displaying far less certainty about the reliability of anthropogenic global warming theory in private than they ever admit in public.
The scientists include men like Michael Mann of Penn State University and Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia, both of whose reports inform what President Obama has called “the gold standard” of international climate science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)….

The Secret History of Climate Alarmism: A very German story of power politics disguised as environmentalism
Madrid 1995: Was this the Tipping Point in the Corruption of Climate Science?
The BBC’s ‘dirty little secret’ lands it in a new scandal: The truth of a secret meeting that decided BBC policy on climate change has come out online
How can the BBC be saved from itself without destroying it?: Dumbed-down climate coverage is just a symptom
Physicists send letter to Senate — Cite 160 scientists protest regarding APS climate position
And that is just the start of a long list of links to Science corruption. Heck the corruption is rampant through out science. US Scientists Significantly More Likely to Publish Fake Research, Study Finds

How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research?
ABSTRACT
The frequency with which scientists fabricate and falsify data, or commit other forms of scientific misconduct is a matter of controversy. Many surveys have asked scientists directly whether they have committed or know of a colleague who committed research misconduct, but their results appeared difficult to compare and synthesize. This is the first meta-analysis of these surveys….
A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices. Meta-regression showed that self reports surveys, surveys using the words “falsification” or “fabrication”, and mailed surveys yielded lower percentages of misconduct….
Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct.